Two major objections against Non-Calvinists answered

[Reformed]

Reformed, am I understanding you correctly then to say that Paul's teaching in Romans 8 regarding man's inability to fulfill the law themselves is equal to their inability to trust in someone else who fulfilled the law for them?

Equal? More of a cause and effect. The unsaved man (v. 5a, 6a) has his mind set on the flesh -- the things of the world. That man's fleshly or natural mind (c.f. 1 Cor. 2:14) is both hostile toward God and not subject (or in submission) to the law of God. In fact it is not able to submit to God.

I believe you and I would agree that Jesus Christ kept the Law perfectly. He kept its moral, ceremonial, and judicial aspects. For those who come to faith in Christ, they share in the perfect Law-keeping of the Son of God. So, for me, (and most Reformed theologians) man's fallen condition makes trusting in Christ, apart from divine regeneration, impossible. That is what the "not even able to do so" is referring to in verse 7. It is not referring to keeping the Mosaic Law.

And you base this upon an interpretation of the word 'law' which would not be the Mosaic Law, but the 'command to believe.'

Is that accurate?

Your statement does adequately reflect my position. It is not just the word "law", but how the word "law" νόμος (nomos) is used. It is used to refer to two separate things. In verses 3 and 4 it refers to the Mosaic Law. In verses 2 and 7 it refers to the Gospel and judgment.

So, back to the question I asked you in my previous post. Is it your contention that νόμος (nomos=law) in Romans 8:7 is referring to the Mosaic Law, i.e. the Law?

 

[The Biblicist]

Not even with an enabling, life giving, Word inspired by the Holy Spirit is clearly proclaimed?

"The truth will set you free"... Unless you trade it in for lies.

"The word came in power."

"The very words that I spoke to you are spirit and life." -Jesus

You seem to ASSUME that people can't respond to a life-giving message unless they have first being given life, but I'm not sure that is actually taught in the text.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:21

You asked a specific question and I gave you a specific answer. You asked WHO is at fault, God or man. You demanded that it had to be God if my position were correct. I denied that it was either but the fault IS the very nature of sin and death. You don't like my answer but my answer is rationally true and Biblically true. Rationally, death = SEPARATION from spiritual life demands separation from spiritual ability and sin = rebellion against God. Biblically this is spelled out in Romans 8:7.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not even with an enabling, life giving, Word inspired by the Holy Spirit is clearly proclaimed?

"The truth will set you free"... Unless you trade it in for lies.

You are forgetting that "the truth" is a Person with power as well as the Word of God. You want to choose one without the other. My positoin involves both and the simple word without the Person has no power.

"The word came in power."

Again, you conveniently forget it can come "in word only" as well and without power as it does the majority of times when preached. - 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

"The very words that I spoke to you are spirit and life." -Jesus

Again, He is speaking of their "CONTENT" but the fact that they have no power in and of themselves is spelled out in just a couple of verses in John 6:64-65 as the ability to come must be "GIVEN" unto a person in addition to merely hearing the word of truth as those in John 6:36 heard but were not "OF ALL" those given and thus there was no coming to Christ in faith - Jn. 6:37-39.

Your error is that you deny one half of the truth and thus pervert the whole truth. There is no inherent power in the Word of God itself apart from the presence and power of the Spirit of truth. Inspiration of the scriptures does not include regeneration by the Spirit.

You seem to ASSUME that people can't respond to a life-giving message unless they have first being given life, but I'm not sure that is actually taught in the text.

I have explained this and demonstrated this by God's word so many times and yet you keep perverting my position and keep asking the same question as though you are incapable of understanding what I have told you over and over and over again? Is this a tactic? I will tell you again. There is no regeneration without faith and there is no faith wihtout regeneration. I have given you the grammatical evidence in Ephesians 2:8 where I pointed out the perfect tense "saved" that demands a COMPLETED ACTION in the past because it continues as a COMPLETED ACTION in the present. This "saved" was "through faith" which demands that faith is concurrent with that completed action or else there was no completed action or there was no faith. No chronological order but simeltaneous action but the logical order is obivous - spiritual life precedes any kind of spiritual action.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:21

This is all true and nothing said in this verse contradicts anything I have said. He is speaking from the perspective of the believer not from God's perspective of saving the believer. Furthermore, there is a clear LOGICAL distinction between "spiritual" life that comes by quickening and "legal" life that comes by justification, just as there is a clear distinction between being a "child" of God by birth (Teknia) and a son of God by adoption (Huios).

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not following. What do you mean by 'accountable to obey' ? Do you think that one loses their righteousness and thus eternal life if they are not as perfectly holy as God is? I'm not understanding how this supports your argument that God holds us responsible for something we are unable to respond to. No believer in Christ is under law and condemnation for their sin anymore, so how exactly does this support your contention that He is going to punish us for something we can't control?

If I don't respond to every point you make its only because you make too many at a time...and many of them are contingent on the other. So, I'm attempting to get back the the main point and stick with it first... I will respond to other points as I have time.

You are continuing to avoid my exposition of Romans 8:7. You are continuing to avoid responding to the language and grammar in Romans 8:7-8.

I have a hard time believing you are sincere in this questioning as you can go right back to your initial post and read your argument and then directly read my initial response. However, I will spell it out again.

Your argument is based upon the assumption that God cannot hold sinners "response-able" for what they are incapable of doing.

My response is that God can hold sinners "response-able" for what they are incapable of doing IF loss of capability is THEIR FAULT and not God's. I have defined that inability inherent in the very nature of sin and death and so it is not God's fault nor did God have to ordain it but it is inseparable from sin and death itself, inherent in the very nature of sin and death.

That said, I gave an illustration where God holds BELIEVERS responsible for what they are incapable of doing and that is being as sinless as God is as holy as God is as perfect as God is and that Paul after receiving imputed righteousness was striving personally to achive that very thing admitting he was still incapable but inability was no excuse to stop striving for that command and goal. I quoted Matthew 5:46 and 1 Pet 1 and Philip 3:7-14 to prove that the writers are not speaking of imputed righteousness but are holding believers responsible for sinless perfection in spite of their lack of ability to achieve that end.

At no time did I say or suggest that eternal life or loss of eternal life is in view. That kind of thinking comes from you not me. Entrance into heaven is secured by imputed righteousnes or justification by faith without works, but nevertheless we are commanded to be something we cannot be - holy EVEN AS God is holy and lack of ability is no excuse to still strive after that as Paul clearly states in Philippians 2:10-12. God has no inferior standard than sinlessness for us to strive after. He will never say, "be ALMOST as holy as I am holy" and he will never command us to strive at any lessor standard of righteousness.

Hence, God can and God does command us to be and do what we are incapable of doing and is just in doing so BECAUSE the inability is of our own fault not God's.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not even with an enabling, life giving, Word inspired by the Holy Spirit is clearly proclaimed?

"The truth will set you free"... Unless you trade it in for lies.

"The word came in power."

"The very words that I spoke to you are spirit and life." -Jesus

You seem to ASSUME that people can't respond to a life-giving message unless they have first being given life, but I'm not sure that is actually taught in the text.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:21

just a question...

Do you believe that a sinner can, by just hearing of the Gospel, told about their need for Him, place faith in Jesus by his own natural faith, that hearing is enough to freely respond and come to Jesus?

that their is no external working of/by the Holy spirit required, that sinners come freely come just thru.by hearing the message alone?

 

[Skandelon]

just a question...

Do you believe that a sinner can, by just hearing of the Gospel, told about their need for Him, place faith in Jesus by his own natural faith, that hearing is enough to freely respond and come to Jesus?

that their is no external working of/by the Holy spirit required, that sinners come freely come just thru.by hearing the message alone?

Faith comes by hearing. -Paul

 

[Skandelon]

I have a hard time believing you are sincere

Please stop speculating as to my intent or motives. Just engage the topic or PM me.

Your argument is based upon the assumption that God cannot hold sinners "response-able" for what they are incapable of doing.

I didn't say 'cannot'. God can do whatever he wants. He is God. I don't believe God would hold men responsible if they are not response-able.

My response is that God can hold sinners "response-able" for what they are incapable of doing IF loss of capability is THEIR FAULT and not God's.

Oh, now I see the misunderstanding. You think I'm protesting God holding mankind responsible for the fall? I am not. I'm protesting the Calvinistic presumption that God holds men responsible for their response to the appeal to be reconciled from that fall. The scriptures never teach that the Fall resulted in loss of the capacity to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled from that Fall. Nor do the scriptures teach that the Gospel appeal is insufficient to enable a fallen man to respond to it. So, why would anyone ASSUME that?

 

[The Biblicist]

Please stop speculating as to my intent or motives. Just engage the topic or PM me.

I said "I had a hard time" but I did not say your were being dishonest.

I didn't say 'cannot'. God can do whatever he wants. He is God. I don't believe God would hold men responsible if they are not response-able.

Oh, now I see the misunderstanding. You think I'm protesting God holding mankind responsible for the fall? I am not. I'm protesting the Calvinistic presumption that God holds men responsible for their response to the appeal to be reconciled from that fall. The scriptures never teach that the Fall resulted in loss of the capacity to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled from that Fall. Nor do the scriptures teach that the Gospel appeal is insufficient to enable a fallen man to respond to it. So, why would anyone ASSUME that?

First there is no "appeal" but a command - imperative mode.

Second, your view is erroneous because you distort, pervert, misinterpret the fallen nature of man. Again, you have been, and presently are avoiding, skirting, ignoring and refusing to deal with my detailed exposition of Romans 8:7 regarding this very point! Why? You have not addressed the detailed evidence I provided beginning with the second argument in Post #88. This is at least the third time I have asked you to respond and thus far there has been no response where you dealt with the detailed evidences I presented. I am afraid that unless I repost it with this post you will be taking me on another merri-go-round ride to nowhere, so:

Second, This carnal mindset of total inaiblity to please God is due to its nature of enmity toward God. Note that Paul says "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as your doctrine of the fallen nature demands. The linking verb "is" is a STATE OF BEING verb and thus is describing what it "IS" by nature. The carnal mind IS enmity.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR. Hence, the fallen nature IS what it is - a state of war against God. This is what it is BY NATURE. That is its condition. That is its STATE OF BEING. That is not its POTENTIAL or what it MAY BECOME due to hardening but that is what it IS. What something IS, is its nature.

Your whole view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as your view sees only that as its POTENTIAL due to hardening or something it becomes by process.

My view states this IS its nature and that is why it IS always at all times resistant to God's will/law - "and IS not subject to the law of God." Again, this "IS" what it "IS" by nature. By nature it is RESISTANT to God's will at all times because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature.

This 'IS" what it "IS" from birth to death as man comes into the world with this kind of FALLEN NATURE and will leave this life with this kind of fallen nature.

Your view cannot accept this NATURE of fallen man because by nature the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the mastery of the law of indwelling sin and is FREE from righteousness and totally DEPRAVED as it IS by nature in a state of war and IS by nature resistant to the will of God and therefore is by nature TOTAL INABILITY to please God - "Neither indeed CAN be. So, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

They CANNOT because they WILL NOT and they WILL NOT because that IS the nature of fallen man or the nature of ENMITY = state of war = the nature of resistance - "not subject to the law of God" That IS the nature of fallen man.

 

[quantumfaith]

Faith comes by hearing. -Paul

Skan, I am sure there is another explanation and it will be prolifically pronounced and pontificated without much delay.

don't preachers like the alliteration of "'p's"

 

[Reformed]

don't preachers like the alliteration of "'p's"

Oh, I just love them. They make my messages that much more powerful. "P" rules.

 

[Reformed]

Skan, I am sure there is another explanation and it will be prolifically pronounced and pontificated without much delay.

In all seriousness, there is not a preacher worth his salt, on either side of the debate, who would deny that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). It is how the sinner comes to believe the message of the word that is the substance of the debate. Does the sinner posses the ability to believe while still dead in his trespasses and sins, or does an outside agent have to make man able to believe? "That is the question" (to quote Hamlet).

 

[quantumfaith]

Oh, I just love them. They make my messages that much more powerful. "P" rules.

R's often work well too. My curiosity causes me to ask for "mathematical" reasons for why "P's" work so well.



In the interest of full disclosure, my "main" Pastor/Teacher rarely, if ever uses alliteration in his messages, and yet he is extremely engaging....at least to me. My Homiletics 101 course did stress the use of alliteration. The suggested model for the beginning preacher was humorously suggested to be "three points and a poem".

 

[The Biblicist]

Faith comes by hearing. -Paul

If "cometh to me" is interpreted to "cometh to me by faith" then the necessary precondition is that such must be given to the Son - Jn. 6:36-39 as NONE but those given come to Christ.

Moreover, "hearing" cannot possibly be interpreted to mean merely EXTERNAL hearing as that would make the oft quoted phrase "he that hath an ear to hear let him ear" be a completely aburd statement as no normal physical born person is without physical ears or physical ability to hear. Certainly, it INCLUDES it but it is certainly comprehensive of something far more than is found in the physical sphere or mere external faculty.

This phrase is not only found in Matthew 13:9-11 where it is explained to include more than mere audible information but only what must be "given" to some that is not "given" to others which is election by definition. The phrase is repeated in all seven letters in the book of Revelation and elsewhere and so cannot be restricted to the Jews or Jewish hardening.

Again, your error is that you embrace a HALF-truth while rejecting the other half of the truth. Mere external hearing does not bring faith to anyone nor is saving faith something all men possess because if that were so, then "coming in faith to Christ" would not be restricted to only those "given" to the Son by the Father. The whole truth is that external reception accompanied with internal CREATIVE power by God is necessary for saving knowledge which is the "substance" of justifying faith:

2 Cor. 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.


BLUE = external delivery of gospel to the external ear
RED = creation of internal ability to understand and receive
GREEN = power is not found in external instrumentality but in God's internal crative work.

Arminianism denies the INTERNAL CREATIVE ACT of God necessary to receive the external delivery by attributing the ultimate power to man's will rather than to God's creative act.

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry, this got buried...

Equal? More of a cause and effect. The unsaved man (v. 5a, 6a) has his mind set on the flesh -- the things of the world. That man's fleshly or natural mind (c.f. 1 Cor. 2:14) is both hostile toward God and not subject (or in submission) to the law of God. In fact it is not able to submit to God.

Ok, so your contention is that because man cannot submit to God's law ('lower case "l", not Mosaic), the effect is that they cannot believe in Christ, who did fulfill the law?

Is that accurate? And you find that sufficiently explained in Rom. 8:7? Is it taught anywhere else more fully in scriptures to help validate that interpretation?

For those who come to faith in Christ, they share in the perfect Law-keeping of the Son of God. So, for me, (and most Reformed theologians) man's fallen condition makes trusting in Christ, apart from divine regeneration, impossible.

So, you are saying that because Christ was a perfect law-keeper and we cannot submit to the law, that means we cannot trust in Christ? Again, is there any more clear passage which teaches this? Because, just trying to be objective here, Romans 8:7 doesn't appear to say enough to draw that conclusion. In fact, it seem to be a very large leap from my perspective.

Your statement does adequately reflect my position. It is not just the word "law", but how the word "law" νόμος (nomos) is used. It is used to refer to two separate things. In verses 3 and 4 it refers to the Mosaic Law. In verses 2 and 7 it refers to the Gospel and judgment.

So, back to the question I asked you in my previous post. Is it your contention that νόμος (nomos=law) in Romans 8:7 is referring to the Mosaic Law, i.e. the Law?

When Paul states, "You are no longer under law but under grace." I'm talking about that 'law.' We are not under a meritorious system. You don't earn your salvation by doing meritorious acts. You are only saved by Grace.

Now, you may wrongly believe that that our view does promote a meritorious system on the basis that man earns or merits God's grace by his faith. But that is NOT what we believe or teach (or at least I don't, nor should others). Even the demons believe. And asking for forgiveness doesn't merit forgiveness.

If a guy killed your child and then asked you to forgive him, would he deserve to be forgiven? Would his request to be forgiven pay the price for murdering your child? Would his humble admission of doing the crime absolve him of that crime?

Of course not. ONLY YOU, the offended, can choose to forgive him. That is ALL YOUR CHOICE.

Same with Grace and salvation. We beg for forgiveness and still deserve hell. God chooses to grace the humble because he is gracious, not because humility merits the grace. That is what he means when he says we are no longer under the law, but under grace. We are NOT on the merit system, but under grace.

 

[Skandelon]

Does the sinner posses the ability to believe while still dead in his trespasses and sins, or does an outside agent have to make man able to believe? "That is the question" (to quote Hamlet).

I'd like to alter your question, if I may, "Is the sinner, being confronted by the powerful life-giving truth of God's Word, enabled to respond willingly, or does God have to an provide an additional more powerful, irresistible working to make him willing?

 

[Skandelon]

Moreover, "hearing" cannot possibly be interpreted to mean merely EXTERNAL hearing as that would make the oft quoted phrase "he that hath an ear to hear let him ear" be a completely aburd statement

It would only be absurd to those unfamiliar with the historical context of the Judicial Hardening of Israel, by which God is

1. Sending them a spirit of stupor (Rom 11)
2. Hiding the truth in parables lest they believe it (Mk 4)
3. Cutting them off (Rm 11)
4. Blinding them (Acts 28)

Where as, those being shown mercy, "the Gentiles will listen." (Acts 28:28)

Knowing this context makes the statement regarding "having an ear to hear" perfectly clear, and it doesn't require the 'total inability' doctrine which undermines human responsibility.

 

[The Biblicist]

It would only be absurd to those unfamiliar with the historical context of the Judicial Hardening of Israel, by which God is

1. Sending them a spirit of stupor (Rom 11)
2. Hiding the truth in parables lest they believe it (Mk 4)
3. Cutting them off (Rm 11)
4. Blinding them (Acts 28)

Where as, those being shown mercy, "the Gentiles will listen." (Acts 28:28)

Knowing this context makes the statement regarding "having an ear to hear" perfectly clear, and it doesn't require the 'total inability' doctrine which undermines human responsibility.

You forget that this is the issue of our debate and yet you are using it to argue a point that has yet to be demonstrated to be fact.

Secondly, the same phrase is used seven times to the churches of Asia which can hardly be interpreted according to the principles you are presuming.

Thirdly, you still are continuing to ignore, avoid, and skirt the real issue of the fallen nature and the latter part of my post on Romans 8:7-8.

 

[Reformed]

I'd like to alter your question, if I may, "Is the sinner, being confronted by the powerful life-giving truth of God's Word, enabled to respond willingly, or does God have to an provide an additional more powerful, irresistible working to make him willing?

You can alter it for your purposes, but I do not agree to that. After all, it is my question.

P.S. And the reason I do not agree to it is there is a strong presumption of a conclusion in your question.

 

[Skandelon]

You can alter it for your purposes, but I do not agree to that. After all, it is my question.

P.S. And the reason I do not agree to it is there is a strong presumption of a conclusion in your question.

I think of it as clarifying what is actually taking place when a lost person is confronted with the gospel. If you don't mind, please explain what you believe the presumption is exactly. Let's unpack that.

 

[Skandelon]

You forget that this is the issue of our debate and yet you are using it to argue a point that has yet to be demonstrated to be fact.

What exactly are you denying to be true about what I said? You don't believe Israel was being 'sent a spirit of stupor,' 'cut off,' or spoken to in parables lest they believe? You don't believe they were being judicially hardened?

Secondly, the same phrase is used seven times to the churches of Asia which can hardly be interpreted according to the principles you are presuming.

Those growing calloused to the teachings of God are universally found in all kinds of churches and locations. I wasn't meaning to limit the doctrine of hardening (growing deaf to divine revelation) to the active judicial hardening of Israel.

Thirdly, you still are continuing to ignore, avoid, and skirt the real issue of the fallen nature and the latter part of my post on Romans 8:7-8.

I have more than one person I'm replying to on that subject, so try to read both because I believe I'm addressing the issue thoroughly.